Lawsuit Filed Over Obama Administration's Anti-DOMA Decision (2165)

The Family Research Council and Judicial Watch requested documents under Freedom of Information Act, but sections were withheld.

WASHINGTON (EWTN News) — A new lawsuit filed against the Department of Justice charges that it is withholding emails about the Obama administration’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

“We have serious concerns that the Justice Department wants to hide evidence that it was doing the bidding of campaign donors and homosexual activists from whom Obama will need assistance for his re-election,” said Family Research Council president Tony Perkins.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Family Research Council had requested the relevant documents from the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to determine the basis for the decision and to determine the possible influence of the homosexual lobby on the decision.

One June 2, the Department of Justice informed the organization that it had searched and identified 357 pages of email collections relevant to the group’s request.

Twenty-seven of these pages were claimed to be exempted and withheld. An administrative appeal of the exemption, filed June 27, has not received a response, despite a federal law requiring one.

The Family Research Council has now joined the organization Judicial Watch in the attempt to obtain some of these same documents.

On Feb. 23, Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Congress that announced that the Department of Justice would not defend the constitutionality of the Marriage Act’s Section 3 as applied to same-sex couples. The section defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The administration’s new position quickly became a part of the legal fight to redefine marriage.

Less than three hours after the announcement, litigants seeking to strike down California’s Proposition 8 filed a motion to vacate the stay of its case with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The litigants cited and quoted from Holder’s letter.

Perkins charged that the administration’s action undermined the law.

“When Barack Obama became president, he took an oath to uphold our laws — and not just the ones with which he personally agrees,” he said. “This isn’t just a threat to marriage. It’s a threat to the entire democratic process. If the Obama administration has nothing to hide, then why stonewall?”

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, charged that the Obama administration is “playing politics with the Freedom of Information Act to avoid telling the American people the truth about one of its indefensible positions.”

“The evidence suggests the nation’s highest law enforcement is refusing to enforce the law to appease another special-interest group,” he said.

EWTN News contacted the Department of Justice for comment but did not receive a response by deadline.

Comments

The so-called “Defense of Marriage Act “was passed solely to disenfranchise gay and lesbian people of federal rights in marriage
It is a sad chapter in the history of the congress. Two federal courts have already declared certain provision of this law unconstitutional. I believe it to be both legally and morally indefensible.

Posted by Ziggy on Saturday, Sep 3, 2011 4:15 AM (EST):

i weep for the day i can set up a premarital sex workshop at my local elementery school. when gay marriage finally infects every living creature and eats their very souls, us queers can rest assured knowing that everyone is now a heretic for letting such a leviathan consume the essence of all that is good. good thing for all you heterosexuals, it seems without your breeding “my kind” would not exist. i can’t wait to start distributing my homosexual live action play-set, once gay marriage hits the big time, EVERYONE will want a way to be gay.

Posted by GGGP1856 on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 1:23 PM (EST):

As individual citizens, homosexuals deserve their personal liberties and rights, like everyone else, including the right to be treated with courtesy and respect. They deserve these rights because they have the inherent, immutable, and natural condition of being human.

However, while all human beings are equal, all human behaviors are not. Homosexual behavior is in the latter category and, therefore, shouldn’t be encouraged through government recognition of same-sex marriage. A few of these reasons are as follows:

Unlike race or gender, homosexuality can be triggered by social influences., including same-sex marriage.

Homosexuals are far more prone to bodily damage and serious disease than heterosexuals.

Even in committed relationships, homosexuals, primarily men, are non-monogamous.

In areas with SSM, homosexuals are far more likely to divorce than heterosexuals.

Homosexuals experience more emotional and mental illness than heterosexuals.

Domestic violence is much more prevalent in male same-sex relationships than in heterosexual ones.

Those who understand that marriage must remain between one man and one woman must work together to educate the public. Please copy this post and read the essay on which it is based, “The Case for Limiting Government Recognition to Traditional Relationships.” it consists of a blog at

Please email this post and the blog link to as many people as you can and ask that they do the same. In this way, we can keep marriage between one man and one woman, as it should be.

Posted by JeffreyRO5 on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 7:08 PM (EST):

Religionists undermine their position by lying. The Obama Administration is most certainly enforcing the law. What they refuse to do, as have many Administrations before them, is defend an unconstitutional law. The Obama Administration, where the national government’s top lawyer resides, has every right to decline to defend a law it deems unconstitutional.

Religionists need to stop lying on the issue of same-sex marriage. Legal same-sex marriage will not turn kids gay, force schools to teach kids how to masturbate, destroy marriage, etc.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 1:05 PM (EST):

Marriage is generally a state formed for the establishment of a solidly bonded pair who will provide a sturdy and healthy relationship into which the next generation may be born and reared, who may in turn go forth and bond with another and then rear future generations.

That individuals acting out their same-sex attractions like to pretend that the wicked and abominable deeds they practice together are in any way comparable to the the chaste and holy sexual expressions between married couples, and that the unhealthy and damaging obsessions that individuals acting out their same-sex attractions develop toward one is comparable to the normal love between a man and a woman who are married to one another is . . . delusional.

These are the Sins That Cry to Heaven For Vengeance. “You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, nor shall a man lie with a man as with a woman. These are abominations.”

On the day that the American people will countenance that their young women should offer themselves to consort with the cattle of the field, it will be right that we should have legal recognition of Same-Sex Marriage in all fifty states.

On the day that the American people will declare it good that our youth should unite themselves in carnal relations with dogs and with bitches, then it will be right that we should have legal recognition Same-Sex Marriage in all fifty states.

However, for so long as the American people view with displeasure the practice of offering oneself in carnal union with beasts, which is forbidden in Leviticus, then the acts forbidden in the very next line, should also be something the American people shall wish to distance themselves from.

Posted by Chuck Anziulewicz on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 12:01 PM (EST):

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is still on the books, and while it is still being enforced, the Administration has wisely chosen not to defend it in court, because it is very clearly unconstitutional. WHY is DOMA unconstitutional? Because it establishes differing legal standards for married Straight couples and married Gay couples. Under DOMA a Gay couple that is legal married in Iowa or Massachusetts is unrecognized as such by the federal government.

Of course, the word “marriage” does not occur in the Constitution. But the federal government has complicated the issue by bestowing MOST of the legal benefits on married couples, 1,138 at last count (according to the GAO). These benefits have to do with Social Security, tax law, inheritance rights, power of attorney, child custody, etc.

Here’s an example: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I’m sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I’m throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.

Consider, also, the “Full Faith & Credit” clause of the Constitution. Because of this, any Straight couple can fly off to Las Vegas for drunken weekend, get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states, and at all levels of government. But thanks to DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa becomes UN-married if they relocate south to Missouri.

The ONLY real difference between a married Gay couple and a married Straight couple is the gender of the two people who have made the commitment. It has nothing to do with procreation, since couples do not need a marriage license to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. So there is really no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that married Straight couples have always taken for granted. This cannot be accomplished in a piecemeal, state-by-state fashion; it is the FEDERAL government which, through its own actions, has made this a federal issue.

The sooner this issue is addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States, the better.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.